on the topic of feedback, I would like to suggest there be some sort of rule against normalizing or positively discussing large age gap relationships (I'm mainly referring to 16-18 year olds with much older individuals since in many jurisdictions I think that's something of a grey area and relationships involving people younger than that are illegal anyway). I'm not entirely sure how such a rule would be phrased, but I think the normalization of this is harmful to young people who view the forum and would like for the staff to address it in some way.
The Official Feedback Thread
- Thread starter Jeremy
- Start date
They are inherently harmful and unsafe. You can disagree all you want but that doesn't change the facts.
An older party intentionally pursuing somebody much younger, in a more disadvantaged place of life then they are in (in this case, lacking life experiences, education, job experience, money) is harmful to the younger person. The older party is automatically given an advantage which gives them power over the other person.
A relationship should be equal. A relationship that is not equal is unhealthy and lends itself to being unsafe.
You personally having parents with a large age gap that you personally don't take issue with isn't the same thing. You were a child or not even born when your parents were at their youngest and the power imbalance was at its greatest.
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
It's not the disagreement. It's the aggressiveness, the sometimes really unkind responses. Some feel more comfortable speaking directly to staff rather than entering this thread. I get it.
I can think of 2 posts in the last day that have actually directly insulted anyone and one of them was you.
Everything else has just been blunt or to the point at best.
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
Maybe you missed it, but my mother was the power in that couple. She pursued my father. She told him how things were going to be. She held the power. It was well known in the entire family, don't mess with my mom.
For some couples it works out. For some it doesn't. Everyone is different. I can't lump an entire category of relationships into "bad".
Can you please provide a link so that i may address it. If i called anyone hurtful names or directly insulted then, i will address it.
I am respectfully going to bow out of this conversation now.
If you cannot see how generally speaking age gap relationships (again amongst people so young) are harmful and how Chris' actions on the forum have been harmful to the point where more than just an apology is warranted, even after all this back and forth, then I have nothing left to say.
I'm just going to spell it out again. This is not about discussing age gap relationships.
It's about a moderator making comments of sexual life and sexual life preferences. Those comments were within the topic of age gap and weren't comments advocating the healthy parts of age gap relationships but purely in the form of sexual or non "serious" as they called them. Furthermore going on to make claims of preferring their partners to be younger both in actual number and in emotion. These are precise narratives that are toxic in age gap relationships that should no be supported.
That is what is harmful and that is what shouldn't have been posted.
As for claims now to the contrary, that is what it is...they're claims now that have no way of substantiating. Any person could come year later and say oh I meant I just don't relate to people my age. That in itself is a problematic statement but also serves nothing other than to distract from issue. The bottom line is the posts shouldn't have happened especially from a moderator. Warnings and rule violations should be the same for all and these fall into rules that have been preexisting for as long as I can remember.
It's about a moderator making comments of sexual life and sexual life preferences. Those comments were within the topic of age gap and weren't comments advocating the healthy parts of age gap relationships but purely in the form of sexual or non "serious" as they called them. Furthermore going on to make claims of preferring their partners to be younger both in actual number and in emotion. These are precise narratives that are toxic in age gap relationships that should no be supported.
That is what is harmful and that is what shouldn't have been posted.
As for claims now to the contrary, that is what it is...they're claims now that have no way of substantiating. Any person could come year later and say oh I meant I just don't relate to people my age. That in itself is a problematic statement but also serves nothing other than to distract from issue. The bottom line is the posts shouldn't have happened especially from a moderator. Warnings and rule violations should be the same for all and these fall into rules that have been preexisting for as long as I can remember.
it’s kinda wild how the conversation can be derailed by focusing on details of the argument instead of the fact of the matter.
the issue isn’t about whether we should demonize support or feel any kind of way about age gap relationships.
the issue is a moderator has behaved inappropriately based on the rules of the forum they moderate, multiple times! a forum based around a kids game at that. if any regular user broke that rule that user would receive some type of action. the standard should be higher for those who enforce the rules which is why people are asking for a moderator to be demoted.
edit: ops selky beat me to it lol
the issue isn’t about whether we should demonize support or feel any kind of way about age gap relationships.
the issue is a moderator has behaved inappropriately based on the rules of the forum they moderate, multiple times! a forum based around a kids game at that. if any regular user broke that rule that user would receive some type of action. the standard should be higher for those who enforce the rules which is why people are asking for a moderator to be demoted.
edit: ops selky beat me to it lol
No worries lol just glad others understand my points..was worried my current sick state I wasn't making sense lol.
With all due respect to you and your parents, nobody really cares about how you don't mind age gaps in relationships. It's a valid piece of feedback directed toward the staff (not you) that there are people here who were made extremely uncomfortable about remarks made regarding age gaps, sex, and relationships. It doesn't matter the legality of it, or how you feel about it, or how much you feel bad for Chris. There are children on the forum.
You're coming from a place of empathy for Chris, which can be a kind gesture, but you are not in a position to be responding to people about it for him. Now you're being rude to people who want their voices heard, by taking focus away from what they're trying to express. I think other people are a little quicker in pointing out that when the last 40+ posts have been about age-gap relationship ethics, instead of getting responses from staff or feedback given to staff, It's a form of derailing the thread. And policing the tone in which people are addressing others; I've seen this be called minimodding. Please just let the staff address things for themselves, and if they think everyone is being too rude then they can say that.
I haven't contributed to this thread and touched on the root before right now, but people are trying to point out that we've just had a member semi-permanently banned for an inappropriate amount of time, unjustifiably. If everyone was being moderated fairly and equally, there is no reason a handful of other members should be allowed on this forum. This is why certain behaviors of staff member's (like in the case, Chris's) actions are being brought up. There is a clear imbalance and misunderstanding of what actions warrant certain repercussions now, so how are we supposed to feel when even the staff members can make inappropriate, or rash, or rude, remarks with ZERO consequences, while the people who come at them and tell them it's wrong get banned from the site? It's completely unfair and it's upsetting, and the staff gave us a place to leave this sort of feedback. Please stop derailing it.
I'm moving on from addressing any one person in particular when I say that Seliph's ban needs to be reconsidered. The amount of time the ban is placed, needs to be reconsidered heavily. Kai is not a predatory person, has never went out of their way to harass anybody, and poses no threat to the community of children OR adults who just mind their business here. I can absolutely not say the same thing about many people who he has gotten into arguments with. I'd rather the staff hand year-long bans to members who make borderline or outright homophobic, transphobic and/or pedophilic comments both in threads and in DMs, than a member who is considered rude. 1 year is absolutely excessive for the content that was reviewed to make that decision. About 200 different posts in this thread alone have been a lot more aggressive than Seliph ever was, so what is the actual reason for a YEAR long ban? Will 1 year be a more effective ban time than 1 month, 2 months, 6 months? Or is the intention to tag on another year for no reason, like when the first ban of 1 week was up? There needs to be a standard, so everybody can be held to the same standard.
And as an extra a bit of feedback, I don't think staff members should be able to take hiatuses without an official mark on their page as an "Out of Office," or a removal of their position if it's long enough. It's not a bad thing to take hiatuses, I actually think it can be healthy, but I would like to know when a person in position is not here reading what's being written to them. I've actually always thought it was strange when there were periods over the years of 75% of staff being virtually inactive.
BetsySundrop
🧙♀️ 🧹
A question was specifically directed toward me.
Agree! I would never dare to claim to respond for Chris. I'm only giving my own feedback. I have never, ever claimed to be responding for anyone, let alone Chris, and have stated that in posts.
I'm responding to people who quote me, ask questions, etc.
I do not believe i have been rude. People are free to post here; I would never prevent that. I would never tell anyone they can/ cannot discuss anything in this thread. That's not my place. I can disagree. People are still free to voice their own feedback.
I do not believe it is rude to offer my feedback and thoughts, nor do I think it's rude to respond to people who directly address me.
Hi! I was wondering if we could receive a response regarding the dark mode. Selky and I asked for it and then LadyDestani eventually came and asked us some more questions about what we wanted in specific for the forums and we both answered and now I kind of don't really know what is happening now regarding that. Is Jeremy capable of adding these features or do you guys need to code or buy them? Do we know approximately when we can implement a dark theme? I understand if you guys don't know, I'm aware there are numerous far more important things that need to be addressed first and foremost and you guys are very busy trying to address everything. I just didn't know if we were only bringing up the idea of a dark theme or if we were actually trying to go through it, because we didn't really receive further clarification from LadyDestani after that.
Dunquixote
No dms and discord messages
I got a question: so from what I understand you all find it is rude for people to speak up against aggressive behavior which consists of yelling at people that they don’t belong in this thread when they disagree with what the vocal majority support, attacking Chris—saying he’s mentally unfit among spreading misinformation? It’s not rude to insult Betsy though? I’ve been following everything she said and she was not rude or insulting anyone. She was just explaining how people who aren’t speaking up may feel. I felt she was very civil and nothing looked like an insult to me. She honestly owed no one that explanation yet she did, I assume hoping people will try to understand the other side’s perspectives.
What you all are doing to Betsy is probably one of the reasons people are scared to speak up.
What you all are doing to Betsy is probably one of the reasons people are scared to speak up.
that is not an attack. it is an observation based upon publicly verifiable info
could you link to what you're referring to? specifically the claim that someone was saying certain people don't belong in the thread and the claim that chris is mentally unfit. I did do a quick search and couldn't find anyone saying those things, but I apologize if I missed it. I think it'd be helpful to be specific about which part of people's posts exactly are bothering people, because I genuinely don't think anyone here is trying to be rude and there seems to be some misunderstanding going on here
regarding what betsy has said, I personally found her comments calling this a "witch hunt" and referring to people on here as "the mob" to be rude and dismissive. if I may circle back, daringred said a few pages ago that she gets to determine how something made her feel and people shouldn't get to tell her a certain post in response to her wasn't rude (something to that effect, I'm sorry if I'm mischaracterizing what she said at all), and I completely agree with that sentiment. I didn't read seliph's interaction with her as rude, but she's entirely within her right to read it that way. I'd like to politely suggest that similarly, we are allowed to read some of betsy's posts as rude or dismissive. you or her don't have to agree with that, but many of us have already explained what we are taking issue with, so you at least have to accept it. to be honest, topics regarding age gap relationships involving a young person, inappropriate sexual behavior, etc. are sore spots for me and probably many others. it doesn't feel good to have concerns about such a serious issue, involving a prominent member of staff, feel like they are being dismissed by others. by all means betsy is entitled to her opinion and she has just as much a right to express it here as anyone else, we just ask that we aren't characterized as an angry mob when we express our own
being civil and being respectful are seperate matters. if you can't differentiate the two, I honestly don't know what to tell you
Hi -Mars-,
Sorry for not following back up on this. I did bring it up with Jeremy and staff. We had some discussion, but no plans were made. Since then we've been a bit preoccupied with the other issues coming up and haven't spoken about it again. I haven't forgotten, though, and hope to have more conversations about it in the future as we have time. I do think accessibility is very important, so I'd like to be able to get something done even if it's not perfect. But I'm not the programmer so I can't promise anything at this point.
I understand! Thank you so much for the response and I really appreciate the timely reply!
Can you show me the examples of people yelling at Betsy, cause I’m struggling to find them and don’t want to be dismissive of what you’re saying. There’s plenty of posts that read as civil and not insulting to me that you keep claiming are bullying or whatever but I’m not really sure how you coming in and dropping accusations, refusing to elaborate or respond to anyone and then disappearing is helping. It just feels like trolling or you’re trying to trigger people.
No one is being targeted or not allowed to post here, and I understand that lots of people disagreeing with you can be overwhelming but unfortunately that is the nature of public feedback on a public forum.
There’s been multiple occasions where people simply say “I’m not looking to discuss this so please don’t reply”, and whilst I’m not sure how that’s helpful, that’s their right. Betsy hasn’t done that as far as I can see so I’m not sure why people responding to her ideas in being perceived as ganging up on her.
Lambda worded it perfectly but “if any of them have a problem, then they need to speak up about it.” Not using their seat at the table “because it's easier isn't an excuse. If they can't bother to do that bare minimum form of engagement” because they think some people might disagree with them too bluntly then they have no grounds to complain.
Liz!
I lost the best friend that I ever had! 💔
I've been following this on and off.
As a member who doesn't get involved in discussions. I'm only here for AC and events. There's enough controversy in rl, TBT is my getaway from that crap.
I respect everyone's thoughts on the fact that things were posted in the past that were inappropriate and even that something's were publicly dealt with very bluntly and it should have been addressed before now, less publicly.
However the manner in which this thread has went and some of the posts in it have went way above any wrongs any staff member may have done.
I'm keeping it short, as I won't respond to any further posts. Thank you Betsy for voicing for what I believe are the thoughts of the majority of members who aren't on TBT for controversy, or have witnessed the onslaught of remarks towards an opinion differing from the majority of those posting therefore not posting themselves. Many members will be feeling majorly uncomfortable with how this thread has went and with fellow members, to the point of not wanting to sign in.
For those posting such serious misinformation about a staff member (or any member) in the middle of this should get it as tight as Chris is. Totally unacceptable.
imo Jeremy's site, Jeremy's staff, Jeremy's rules.
If I don't like how a site is ran on the internet , I'm always free to walk away.
For the record, I don't think I've spoken more than a couple of sentences to any staff member. My feelings come as a human being for other human beings who put so much time and effort into making this site a place you all want to be and it seems have spent many years since you were so upset. Can't be that bad, eh!?
I hope Chris is okay. The odds against him are showing quite unfair with others feeling unable to post support publicly.
As a member who doesn't get involved in discussions. I'm only here for AC and events. There's enough controversy in rl, TBT is my getaway from that crap.
I respect everyone's thoughts on the fact that things were posted in the past that were inappropriate and even that something's were publicly dealt with very bluntly and it should have been addressed before now, less publicly.
However the manner in which this thread has went and some of the posts in it have went way above any wrongs any staff member may have done.
I'm keeping it short, as I won't respond to any further posts. Thank you Betsy for voicing for what I believe are the thoughts of the majority of members who aren't on TBT for controversy, or have witnessed the onslaught of remarks towards an opinion differing from the majority of those posting therefore not posting themselves. Many members will be feeling majorly uncomfortable with how this thread has went and with fellow members, to the point of not wanting to sign in.
For those posting such serious misinformation about a staff member (or any member) in the middle of this should get it as tight as Chris is. Totally unacceptable.
imo Jeremy's site, Jeremy's staff, Jeremy's rules.
If I don't like how a site is ran on the internet , I'm always free to walk away.
For the record, I don't think I've spoken more than a couple of sentences to any staff member. My feelings come as a human being for other human beings who put so much time and effort into making this site a place you all want to be and it seems have spent many years since you were so upset. Can't be that bad, eh!?
I hope Chris is okay. The odds against him are showing quite unfair with others feeling unable to post support publicly.
